The ‘Velvet Hammer’ Returns: States Lead Renewed Antitrust Battle Against Live Nation

The ‘Velvet Hammer’ Returns: States Lead Renewed Antitrust Battle Against Live Nation

After a week of procedural turbulence, the high-stakes antitrust trial against Live Nation-Ticketmaster has reignited, with a coalition of states now at the helm. Following the Justice Department’s unexpected mid-trial settlement, the legal spotlight has shifted, revealing a determined effort by state attorneys general to challenge what they describe as Live Nation’s market dominance, often wielded with a ‘velvet hammer’ – a term used in court to describe the company’s subtle yet powerful leverage over competitors and venues.

The trial, which resumed surprisingly smoothly on Monday, March 17, 2026, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing saga to potentially reshape the live entertainment industry. Despite initial calls for a mistrial due to concerns about jury prejudice and effective case transfer, Judge Arun Subramanian’s firm stance and the states’ swift adaptation ensured the proceedings continued, picking up precisely where they left off.

A New Legal Front: States Take the Reins

The states’ journey to lead this complex litigation was not without its hurdles. Their initial request for a mistrial, driven by concerns over effectively inheriting the DOJ’s case and potential jury bias from the shakeup, was met with skepticism from Judge Subramanian. However, once the states secured the DOJ’s expert witness and bolstered their legal team, the motion was withdrawn, paving the way for a seamless transition.

Jurors, welcomed back from a brief ‘spring break,’ were reminded of their instructions and the resolution of the US government’s claims, with the judge emphasizing that no inferences should be drawn from the change in parties. The new legal team, co-led by Jonathan Hatch from the New York AG’s office and Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn – a veteran of landmark antitrust cases against the NCAA – immediately delved into the heart of the matter.

Unpacking the ‘Velvet Hammer’: Testimony Reveals Market Tactics

The renewed trial quickly returned to critical testimony, shedding light on Live Nation’s alleged anticompetitive practices. Jay Marciano, COO of AEG, a significant competitor to Live Nation, was back on the stand. His testimony highlighted the stark contrast between European and US ticketing models: Europe often sees multiple ticketing services at a single venue, fostering competition, while the US norm leans towards exclusive ticketing contracts, frequently with Ticketmaster.

During cross-examination, Marciano revisited a key incident: a call between Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and the then-CEO of Barclays Center. When Barclays considered abandoning Ticketmaster, Rapino allegedly suggested it would be harder for the arena to secure concerts, especially with the new UBS Arena nearby. While Barclays interpreted this as a threat to protect Ticketmaster, Marciano acknowledged that concert promoters commonly leverage venues against each other for better terms, and a new venue like UBS Arena would naturally attract artists.

Amphitheater Dominance and Strategic Negotiations

Further allegations focused on Live Nation’s extensive control over US amphitheaters. Robert Roux, Live Nation’s president of US concerts, faced questioning regarding the company’s alleged monopoly in large outdoor venues. Plaintiff attorney Josh Hafenbrack presented Live Nation’s own business documents, illustrating the company’s aggressive expansion, gaining power over four of the top five US amphitheaters by ticket sales since 2016.

A 2018 presentation, for instance, highlighted 62 of the top 100 global amphitheaters as Live Nation-owned, operated, or exclusively booked, a number Roux confirmed has since grown. While Live Nation maintains that other venue types offer sufficient competition, an internal 2015 email from Roux revealed a different perspective. He noted that many non-superstar artists specifically seek amphitheater bookings – many of which are under Live Nation’s control – creating “room for tighter negotiations and deals” for the company.

The ‘Together or Competitors’ Mandate

The trial also brought to light internal communications that underscored Live Nation’s competitive philosophy. A revealing 2018 email exchange showed CEO Michael Rapino questioning why Live Nation should provide shows to Red Mountain Entertainment, a promoter it was considering acquiring, before the acquisition was complete. Roux’s response at the time was blunt: the message to Red Mountain should be, “Either we are together or we are competitors.” This statement, repeatedly echoed in the proceedings, encapsulates the core of the states’ argument: that Live Nation uses its immense market power to eliminate or absorb competition, rather than engage in fair play.

As the trial unfolds, these testimonies and internal documents paint a compelling picture of an industry giant employing sophisticated strategies to maintain its dominant position. The states’ challenge aims to dismantle these alleged monopolistic practices, promising a verdict that could redefine the future of live music and ticketing in America.

For more details, visit our website.

Source: Link